- From: Frank Mori Hess <fmhess_at_users.sourceforge.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:38:29 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 17 November 2003 03:34 am, Klaas Gadeyne wrote: > Can you give an example from the application point of view, since I > don't really see how you can switch between x1, x2 and x4 counting with > the above mentioned trigger/action pairs scheme? x1 quad encoding is "if input A has a rising edge, and input B is low, then increment" plus "if input A has a falling edge, and input B is low, then decrement". x2 encoding has the same 2 trigger/action pairs as x1, then adds "if input A is rising, and input B is high, then decrement" and "if input A is falling, and input B is high, then increment". x4 encoding has all the pairs from x1 and x2 plus 4 more triggering off of input B rising/falling edges and input A levels. Z channel reset might be for example "if input A and B are low, and input Z is high, then reset". > > Furthermore, a couple of weeks ago, there was a post with a question > about buffered event counting on the ML. Does this application class > fit somehow in your scheme too (the are still some other applications, > that are not adressed yet, such as period measurement etc)? I haven't looked into buffered event counting at all, or really anything beyond the simple counters (with gating) and the quadrature encoding. Well, I've had some vague ideas about configuring inputs to run off an internal clock, and supporting an output line but I'm not at all sure it wouldn't just make the insn too painful to use. I'm hoping others (such as yourself) will be able to help answer these questions and make suggestions once I put the details into cvs (I will do that soon, I'm just a little busy in RL). > > The good part about your proposal seems to me the fact that you use a > command for something that is truly asynchronous. > OTOH, if you program it with instructions as we currently did, it > seems to me there is more parallellism between the different application > classes. I guess it is going to have to be insn until after 1.0 maybe, since I don't see how we could quite be able to mash it onto the command interface without changes. I'd like to hear something from Dave about what he wants to see happen with the pulse generation. > > Furthermore, I guess the 8 channel DIO subdevice could be committed as > well, since it is less "intrusive" with respect to the API? I don't think that part will be a problem. - -- Frank -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE/utem5vihyNWuA4URAqbuAJ0eCQncUldQB3EawRm7fZm36u0Q8gCeOAf6 c70UYbvlu5M03NK6u4LRuwA= =OxET -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on 2003-11-19Z02:38:29